Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of rhinolophids/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of rhinolophids

edit

List of rhinolophids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, it's bats list #2, and mammal list #43: Rhinolophidae. These are the 92 species of horseshoe bats, cousins of the leaf-nosed bats of the last list. Basically, it's a wide array of tiny bats (the size of your thumb, or at most two thumbs) with funny little faces. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family... though reading between the lines of the academic-speak, the scientific consensus is that this family's taxonomy is a hot mess, and by 2100 it could be anywhere from 70 to 130 species once they all agree what a "species" is. In the meantime, we'll stick with 92. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

AK

edit
  • "mammal order Chiroptera" should be "mammalian order"
  • "Chiroptera, and part" Comma unnecessary.
  • "microbat suborder grouping" Doesn't make sense, should be either "microbat suborder Microchiroptera" or just "microbat suborder".
  • "rhinolophid, or a" Comma unnecessary.
  • "wing lengths ranging from the" Currently, this reads as if the wing length ranges from the FLH bat to the GWH bat. I'd change it to "ranging from 3 cm (1 in) in the Formosan...to 8 cm (3 in) in the great woolly horseshoe bat."
  • "Twelve species..., and Hill's horseshoe bat is..., collectively making up almost fifteen percent of the species in the family." Doesn't seem to be grammatically correct, I'd split the sentence up and change to "These collectively make up almost fifteen percent of the species in the family"
  • Great work overall, that's all I got. AryKun (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AryKun: All done, thanks! --PresN 22:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on prose. AryKun (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • I checked a handful of map licenses; they're probably all fine.
  • Map Captions: ""Southesastern" (twice). Indo-Chinese lesser brown horseshoe Bat has two problems: lowercase "Bat", and the map caption says "Southeastern Africa".
  • For File:Rhinolophus mossambicus.jpg, Plos.org is safe, but ... I'm not sure, I was expecting to see some kind of tag saying that it came from Plos.org. Same goes for File:Rhinolophus smithersi.jpg. File:Rhinolophus pearsonii.jpg is also safe, but I was expecting either a FlickrBot tag or a US-PD tag.
  • For the other image licenses, FWIW, my tally is: 10 are labeled as "own work", 17 as public domain (incl. from the Biodiversity Center and one from forestryimages.org), 6 as iNaturalist.org, and 2 as FlickrBot. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

edit
  • You know the drill.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations (but I was in a hurry when I checked the 4th column; all I can say is that it's not missing anything, but the reviews above seem to have covered it).
  • 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. My image review is above.
  • 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fixed one caption myself, looks good to go. Great series! - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

edit

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Support. Honestly you're insanely consistent in your references, and it leaves me in awe lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: It's because I generate the IUCN ones using a custom program that also generates the base table, so they can't not be consistent, and the book cites are just copy-pasting with different page numbers most of the time. --PresN 16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh that makes a lot of sense! Good to know :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_rhinolophids/archive1&oldid=1244259895"